Congress enforces prohibition - Oct 28, 1919 - HISTORY.com Congress enforces prohibition Publisher A+E Networks Congress passes the Volstead Act over President Woodrow Wilson’s veto. The Volstead Act provided for the enforcement of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Prohibition Amendment. The movement for the prohibition of alcohol began in the early 19th century, when Americans concerned about the adverse effects of drinking began forming temperance societies. By the late 19th century, these groups had become a powerful political force, campaigning on the state level and calling for national liquor abstinence. In December 1917, the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes,” was passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. In January 1919, the 18th amendment achieved the necessary two-thirds majority of state ratification, and prohibition became the law of the land. The Volstead Act, passed nine months later, provided for the enforcement of prohibition, including the creation of a special unit of the Treasury Department.

Despite a vigorous effort by law-enforcement agencies, the Volstead Act failed to prevent the large-scale distribution of alcoholic beverages, and organized crime flourished in America. In 1933, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified, repealing prohibition. Related Videos Volstead Act Blog Volstead Act Andrew J. Volstead, Republican representative from Minnesota, was the driving force behind the National Prohibition Act (popularly the Volstead Act), written to provide for the enforcement of the recently ratified 18th Amendment . It was passed by Congress in October, 1919, but was vetoed by President Wilson on October 27. The House again passed the measure, with enough votes to override Wilson's veto, on the same day and the U.S. Senate did the same on the next day. The manufacture, transport, export, sale or possession of alcoholic beverages was prohibited within the United States Alcoholic beverages were those that contained more than one-half percent of alcohol Federal agents were empowered to investigate and prosecute violators.

The measure retained taxation on alcoholic beverages, despite having made them illegal, and permitted brewers to have products with more than .5% alcohol, provided that the level was reduced to below that mark before being sold to the public. Volstead failed to get reelected in 1922, but some authorities have suggested that low farm prices, rather than prohibition legislation, accounted for his defeat. The public adhered to this law fairly faithfully in its early years, but support declined sharply as crime rates increased. In early 1933, in anticipation of the 18th Amendment's repeal, the Volstead Act was revised, which allowed the manufacture and sale of 3.2 percent beer. The act was voided later that year with the adoption of the 21st Amendment . Off-site search results for "Volstead Act"... Congress overrides prohibition veto, Oct. 28, 1919 - POLITICO POLITICO Undated photo of Rep. Andrew Volstead. | Image courtesy of the Library of Congress Congress overrides prohibition veto, Oct.

28, 1919 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter On this day in 1919, Congress overrode President Woodrow Wilson’s veto of the Volstead Act, formally known as the National Prohibition Act. The legislation, which barred the sale of alcoholic beverages, was named for Rep. Andrew Volstead (R-Minn.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Dubbed at the time The Noble Experiment, it defined intoxicating liquor as any beverage containing more than 0.5 percent alcohol and superseded all existing state prohibition laws. After a prolonged struggle, Congress had enacted a temporary wartime ban on liquor in November 1918, which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently upheld, just as World War I drew to a close. The Volstead Act served as enabling legislation for the recently ratified 18th Amendment, which was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933, thus ending the Prohibition era. Story Continued Below Volstead had introduced the measure on May 28, 1919. Democrats countered with what would be known as the “wet law,” which would have repealed wartime prohibition.

The battle between the “wets” and the “bone-drys,” as prohibition supporters were known, raged all summer in the House. During one debate, Volstead, in defending the proposed act, declared, “The American people have said that they do not want any liquor sold, and they have said it emphatically by passing almost unanimously the constitutional amendment.” The law cleared the chamber convincingly, 225-59, with a solid Republican majority. Although Volstead led the fight in Congress for the permanent legislation, it was conceived and drafted by National Anti-Saloon League’s Wayne Wheeler. The league organized itself at the grass-roots level, often working through churches. It supported or opposed candidates based solely on their position on prohibition and nothing else. Volstead, who had served 10 terms in Congress, lost his seat in 1922, falling victim to low farm prices rather than his sponsorship of prohibition. Source: Historian, Clerk of the U.S. House What Was the Volstead Act? (with pictures) Hobbies What Was the Volstead Act?

Last Modified Date: 08 January 2017 Copyright Protected: Top 10 amazing movie makeup transformations The Volstead Act was a piece of legislation passed in 1919. It enabled the United States government to enforce the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and is formally known as the National Prohibition Act. In combination with the 18th Amendment and other supporting legislature, it is included under the blanket term “Prohibition.” In 1933, this act and other Prohibition-related laws were repealed in response to popular outcry. The 18th Amendment was introduced into the Senate in 1917, and it was successfully ratified by 1919, when the need for the Volstead Act to enable its enforcement became clear. Under the 18th Amendment, “intoxicating liquor” was essentially prohibited within the United States. The law was passed in response to the temperance movement , which had gathered large numbers of followers. Adherents to the movement believed that the consumption of alcohol was harmful, and that society in general would benefit if alcohol was banned.

The wording of the act specifically defined “intoxicating liquor,” stating that any beverage that contained 0.5% alcohol by volume or higher would be covered. It also clarified that transport, sale, barter, trade, manufacture, delivery, processing, and possessing alcohol would all be considered illegal. Criminal penalties for lawbreaking were additionally defined under the Volstead Act, which was authored by Wayne Wheeler and sponsored by Andrew Volstead. Ad Although the temperance movement lobbied to ban alcohol because they thought society would improve as a result, the consequences of the 18th Amendment proved to be opposite of what had been expected. Crime and lawlessness rose in the United States in response, as gangs rose up to provide alcohol to the masses clamoring for it. Much of the success of underground economies, and the mafia that facilitated them, is a direct result of prohibition. Bootleggers sold alcohol of varying strengths and qualities, and citizens flocked to underground speakeasies where they could obtain alcohol, listen to jazz , and dance the night away.

Much of the culture of the 1920s in America was linked to Prohibition, but the nation certainly did not become more staid or temperate as a result of the passage of the law. President Woodrow Wilson actually attempted to veto the act, but the Senate overrode the veto. As the 1920s progressed, it became readily apparent that Prohibition was not working out as planned. In response, the motions to dismantle it were begun in 1933, and the 18th Amendment was officially repealed on 5 December by the 21st Amendment. The Volstead Act was rendered obsolete when the amendment was repealed. Ad anon155574 Post 7 I quit drinking, it was killing me. I've found marijuana to be a less harmful substitute. It's how I relax and it helps me sleep. Why is it anybody else's business? And to think of the cash wasted and lives ruined of people who feel as I do is infuriating. Get with it America, it is a better choice than drinking. anon126435 Post 6 The restriction of alcohol by the Volstead Act obviously didn't work! Why?

Because the citizens wanted, and were willing to fight for it! The same holds true for the use of various drugs, marijuana in particular. Mexican cartels are slaughtering thousands of people on both sides of the border in an attempt to intimidate both governments. Due to false rumors and innuendo (many initiated by legalized drug companies)the American people have been duped into believing ridiculous falsehoods. If those "illegal" drugs were legalized and regulated in the proper fashion, the drug cartels would be out of business! The killings would stop! Think about it! anon112124 Post 5 Marijuana use by citizens will be legalized. It's not a question of if, but when. It's ridiculous how our tax dollars are being wasted on prosecution of individuals possessing mediocre amounts of cannabis. The public wants it and will eventually get it. anon18391 Post 3 All this talk about legalizing drugs, but would you honestly have the government use your hard earned tax money on creating a safe system in which to sell dangerous substances? Illegal drug use is clearly not as widespread and popular as drinking alcohol, and most can have seriously damaging results.

And even if you argue that small doses aren't harmful how could you possibly regulate how much people take? You couldn't, they could buy more illegally anyway. I for one wouldn't pay my tax. anon3969 Post 2 It also is amazing that most illegal drugs have not been legalized because their current status has not discouraged the appetite for it; users go underground; the ones whom are benefiting the most are the gangs/mafia's or whatever you would like to name organized crime (sounds familiar....). Instead of pouring millions/if not billions into "crime" fighting and incarcerating these "criminals", how about diverting the funds into rehabilitation? I have a feeling that legalization of "illicit" drugs would seriously cut into SOMEONE's profit.... so please readers enlighten me.... anon3882 Post 1 I was wondering why the USA government has not learned from this. The Veto banning embryonic stem cell research will not retard scientists from carrying out research on it, of course, it will definitely make them. Even though I believe that adult stem cell, especially, cord blood stem cell research, has more to offer in terms of actual transplantation and cure, I still feel that embryonic stem cell research should not be vetoed.

Post your comments Prohibition and the 18th Amendment. Home Page Collecting Dumping History of Brewing Cans of the Month Trading FAQ Sitemap In 2005 I wrote the Woodrow Wilson House 's exhibit, “No Temperance in It': Woodrow Wilson, the Prohibition Amendment and Brewing in Washington, D.C." The exhibit ran from October 27, 2005 until April 10, 2006. As part of my research I wrote a short history of the passage of the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act which I present here in the hopes that it may be useful. I also wrote a page on the history of Prohibition in Virginia . As always, corrections and additions are welcome, please email me at Mark@rustycans.com “No temperance in it…”: Woodrow Wilson & Prohibition Because Prohibition began in Wilson’s administration it is often assumed that he supported it. In fact, Wilson vetoed the infamous Volstead Act which enforced Prohibition and he opposed a federal law enforcing what he thought was a personal moral issue. However, after the 18th Amendment passed and it became law he defended its enforcement.

Neither a "dry" or a "wet" what Wilson supported was a middle position, sometimes referred to as “temperance” where he supported laws encouraging moderation rather than a full banning of alcoholic beverages. Wilson was himself a moderate drinker. His home had a small wine cellar and he occasionally enjoyed a glass of good Scotch in the evening, although he seems to have never drunk to excess. Wilson's position of moderation was sometimes called "temperance" or "true temperance," but this can be a bit confusing because many of the groups that supported full prohibition called themselves "temperance" groups. For the purposes of this essay “prohibition” will refer to the total banning of alcoholic beverages for consumption, while “temperance” will refer to restricting alcoholic beverages in order to limit their use while allowing at least some such beverages (usually low alcohol beer and wine) to remain legal. Likewise the term “wet” or “wets” will refer to those who opposed prohibition while “dry” or “drys” were those who supported prohibition. Furthermore, there sometime appears some confusion over the difference between the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act.

The two are not the same, but were each separate parts that together made up Prohibition. The 18th Amendment established the Prohibition of "intoxicating" (alcoholic) beverages in the US, but the Volstead Act was necessary to define what the amendment meant by “intoxicating” and it gave the government the legal right to enforce the law. Without the Volstead Act, the 18th amendment had no teeth, and without the 18th amendment the Volstead Act was unnecessary. The 19th Century Temperance movements have a long history in the United States, dating to the early 19th century when drinking hard liquor--and alcoholism--were much more prevalent than in the early 21st Century. According to some estimates the average American drank three times more alcohol in the 1790s than they did in the 1990s. (That is measuring the actual alcohol contained in the beverages consumed) At first, most temperance movements aimed at moderation rather than total abstinence. They were designed to combat prolonged drunkenness, not total abolition of all alcoholic beverages. However, those supporting abolition of alcoholic beverages eventually drowned out the voices for moderation.

In 1851 Maine became the first state to totally go “dry”, banning the sale of alcohol except for ''medicinal, mechanical or manufacturing purposes.'' Prohibition laws are still sometimes referred to as “Maine Laws” for this reason. By 1855, twelve states had adopted total prohibition. The Civil War stopped the movement towards prohibition, however, as did the difficulties in enforcing it. Most of the “dry” states rejoined the “wet” ranks by 1880, with Maine being the notable holdout, although even it had riots over alcohol. After the Civil War several Prohibitionist groups were formed that would dominate the campaign to ban alcohol over the next several decades. In 1867 the Prohibition Party was formed to run its own candidates for public office. The Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was formed in 1873 in Ohio. The two groups followed different strategies. The Prohibition Party believed that the only way to establish Prohibition was to elect candidates running primarily as Prohibitionists. The WCTU would support any candidate, Republican or Democrat, that promised to support their agenda.

The Anti-Saloon League (ASL) was founded in 1895 and followed the WCTU model supporting “dry” candidates regardless of party. The two groups also worked to pass prohibition laws piecemeal, making first towns and then counties dry through local referendums. Eventually entire states could be made "dry" this way. It was a successful strategy. By 1918, twenty-seven of the forty-eight states were already officially ‘dry” as were the District of Columbia and Alaska. The 1916 Election The 1916 election was a watershed moment for the prohibition campaign. Both Democratic incumbent Woodrow Wilson and Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes ignored the Prohibition issue, as did both party's political platforms. Both parties were split. Both had strong wet and dry factions and with the election expected to be close, neither candidate wanted to alienate part of their base. Dry organizations--including the WCTU and ASL--followed a two-path strategy. They worked to be certain that neither Presidential candidate dared move too close to "wet" candidates and they worked to elect dry candidates to Congress. Their efforts were successful to a degree that surprised drys and wets alike.

The Republicans made large gains in Congress and added 65 new drys to the House. The Democrats lost seats, barely maintaining control of Congress. However, even though they sent fewer members to the House, the Democrats still added 20 new dry members. When the 65th Congress met in 1917 the Democratic drys outnumbered their party's wets by 140 to 64 while dry Republicans outnumbered their wets by 138 to 62. For the first time a new Congress would be dominated by prohibition supporters. Wilson was also put in a difficult spot. Both parties were split between wets and drys, but 17 of the 30 states Wilson carried in 1916 were dry while Hughes only carried 6 of the 23 dry states (along with 12 of the 25 wet).

So while both parties were split, Wilson knew that the dry states had carried him to reelection, something that was made explicit to him immediately after the election by on of his progressive supporters, writer John Palmer Gavit, who wrote to Wilson that he should not forget that he had “been elected by the vote of ‘dry’ states.” (Gavit to Wilson, November 22, 1916, Papers of Woodrow Wilson 40:42. Hereafter PWW followed by volume number and page number.) Candidate 25 23 The election results had emboldened the dry members and disheartened the wets. Soon after the election Purley Baker, head of the ASL, issued a statement noting that “…the political party that is not willing to put a plank in its platform, and the candidate, from the President down, who is not willing to stand squarely on that plank, are not worthy [of] support by patriotic American citizens.” (Kerr, 194) Given that such a stance would alienate the sizable wet voting bloc, both parties were caught in a dilemma. No matter what stance they took, it would alienate part of their base.

Looking for a way out Congress decided to pass the issue to the states by passing the dry's desired Amendment to the Constitution establishing national prohibition. It would then be out of Washington’s hands. The Sheppard Act Before the new 65th Congress could even meet, the lame duck 64th Congress started the movement by passing dry legislation. When the 64th Congress met for a final time at the end of 1916 it began consideration of a number of prohibition laws. The first measure to pass was the Sheppard Act, named after dry Senator John Morris Sheppard of Texas. The Sheppard Act made Washington, D.C. totally dry. The bill’s sponsors, however, had to dodge an institutional roadblock, the House District of Columbia Committee. The committee, chaired by Ben Johnson (D-KY) had killed earlier attempts to enact Prohibition in DC by simply refusing to meet. By submitting the bill to the Senate first, drys hoped to bypass the House committee. The wets tried to derail the law by asking for a referendum to allow the citizens of DC to vote for or against Prohibition. Congress refused to allow such a referendum and Wilson, correctly, noted that there was no mechanism for such a vote.

As he told a reporter…”there is no voting machinery in the District of Columbia. It would have to be created. There are some practical difficulties about it.” (Wilson Press Conference, 15 January 1917, PWW 50:771). However, the resolution calling for a District referendum died in the Senate with a tie vote. (see chart below) Vice-President Thomas Marshall did not cast a deciding vote, so the amendment failed. The Senate vote for the Referendum (a yes vote supports a referendum on the Sheppard Act within the District) 9 January 1916 10 32 Once the bill passed wets began lobbying Wilson to veto the law. Wilson political ally, American Federation of Labor (AF of L) President Samuel Gompers visited Wilson and pressed him to kill the bill noting that beer was the working man’s beverage. Banning it would discriminate against workers while allowing the wealthy to keep their stocks of hard liquor. Gompers had a legitimate point. Beer and ale are relatively inexpensive, but will only last a short while in storage, while more expensive distilled liquors will last for years.

Caught between the two factions, drys and wets, Wilson told his Secretary, Joseph Tumulty, “how impossible this is for me, especially at [the] present.” However, on March 3, 1917 Wilson signed the bill. Why did Wilson sign the Sheppard Act? As he noted at the time, the Constitution gives Congress police power for the District, so the law fell within Congress’s responsibility. Historically, for this reason, Presidents rarely interfered with Congress when it came to governing the District and Wilson was no doubt aware of the precedent. However, the growing political strength of the drys also probably played a part. Wilson was very aware of his role as the head of the Democratic Party, and vetoing the Sheppard Act would have split the party at a crucial time. Wilson needed to save his political capital for other battles in Congress. The US would enter the First World War in early April of 1917 and Wilson had spent the winter of 1916-1917 dealing with the European war and trying to get Congress to pass legislation arming US merchant ships against German submarines.

Then on January 31, 1917, Germany has announced that they would begin unrestricted submarine warfare. On February 3 the US broke diplomatic relations with Berlin. The House of Representatives approved arming US ships, but the Senate balked, frustrating Wilson's efforts. In light of this growing international and political crisis, prohibition in the District was best pushed to one side. Wilson could not risk alienating members of Congress over a local issue when he might need their votes for defense bills. Disappointed wets did not give up however, and seven saloon-keepers filed suit with the District Supreme Court. The plaintiffs claimed that by selling them licenses the District government had recognized the saloon-keepers’ right to sell liquor and therefore the Sheppard Act violated their property rights. The District Judge, Justice Gould, refused the claim noting that the internal revenue license was in fact a tax not a license, and did not guarantee the right to sell intoxicants. He noted that the US Supreme Court had earlier ruled there was no over-riding legal right to sell liquor because there were important public health and safety rights which took precedence over property rights.

(“Sheppard Dry Law is Upheld by Court” Washington Star, 24 October 1917). DC Goes Dry At midnight 31 October 1917, Washington, D.C. went dry without a great deal of fanfare. Many restaurants had already run out of liquor and were serving ice water. Private clubs had sold their remaining stock to their members as private stocks of liquor were still legal. A few areas in the city were crowded that final evening. Ninth street from Pennsylvania to K Street, which included Washington’s tiny Chinatown, was crowded until after 1 am with people celebrating, or mourning, the end of John Barleycorn at DC’s Chinese restaurants. M Street between Rock Creek and the Aqueduct Bridge, a saloon-heavy area, ended up closing before midnight as stocks were exhausted. The same was true along H Street NW, another area populated by saloons. (“King Booze Quits Throne in Capital” Evening Star, 1 November 1917). A local DC photography studio made a mock-up coffin for whiskey which became a popular prop for doughboys getting their pictures taken in their new uniforms.

The top of the coffin prop reads "Gone But Not Forgotten." (Photo courtesy of Wes P. Thanks Wes!) DC's Breweries There were still four breweries operating in DC in 1917, all of which were forced to close. Washington Brewing Company simply shut its doors. National Capital Brewing switched to making Carry's Ice Cream. They later sold the ice cream business but kept the family’s other concern, a local bank. Christian Heurich’s brewery was the largest in Washington. They tried switching to a non-alcoholic fruit drink. Heurich was 75 years old in 1917 and had invested much of his fortune in real estate so he was safe financially so he could easily have retired. However, he did not want to just fire all of his workers simply because Congress decided that the people in DC could no longer buy alcohol. So in September 1917, Heurich bought $100,000 worth of apples. He stored them in his lagering cellars, made them into a mash, pasteurized it so it would not ferment, and produced a sparkling apple drink.

He added hops to the resulting drink for flavor and stored it in empty beer kegs that had been sterilized. The drink went over well, but the remaining stock soon began to ferment despite the pasteurization, probably because of lingering yeast in the kegs. Heurich hurriedly sold off as much of the stock as he could while it was still legal to do so. According to Heurich’s unpublished memoirs, a limo from the White House came to the brewery to buy some a keg or two. The remaining unsold two thirds of the apple drink was put into storage. Once Prohibition was lifted in 1933 and Heurich's reopened, it was poured down the drain to make room for real beer. The Lever Bill The Sheppard Act was not the last prohibition measure passed in 1917. Wilson had tried to avoid alienating both wets and drys by claiming that prohibition was a “social and moral” issue, and therefore not properly part of a party platform. However when the US declared war on Germany on 6 April 1917, such "social and moral” issues suddenly became a politically legitimate topic for Congress.

The brewing industry in particular became a target because it was dominated by German immigrants and first generation German-Americans. The prohibitionists made the most of this by tying German brewers as much as possible to the nation of Germany with which the US was at war. At times this campaign reached ridiculous levels, such as when rumors spread through Washington, D.C. that local brewer Christian Heurich had installed cannon on his Maryland dairy farm overlooking the capitol. One dry magazine, American Issue made the connection between alcohol and the war explicit noting, “German brewers in this country have rendered thousands of men inefficient and are thus crippling the Republic in its war on Prussian militarism….” (American Issue, 3 August 1917) The alcoholic beverage industry also vulnerable because it consumed grain that could be used for food and coal that could be used for factories turning out war material. Moreover, intoxicating beverages were blamed for lowering worker productivity at a time when the nation needed an industrial push to provide weapons for the US and the allies both. The drys exploited this vulnerability as Washington moved to regulate American industry to make war production more efficient. In anticipation of this need, Congress in 1916 had formed the Council of National Defense.

Its members were the Secretaries of War, the Navy, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. Secretary of War Newton Baker acted as the Chair. The Council was formally established on 29 August 1916 and its responsibilities included coordinating transportation, industrial and farm production, financial support for the war, and public morale. One of the experts hired by the Council was Professor Irving Fisher of Yale. Fisher was an economist, an active support of eugenics (and, incidentally, the inventor of the rolodex), and a firm believer in the dangerous effects of drinking alcohol. Fisher prepared a report claiming that if brewers were forbidden from using barley, the resulting savings in grain could produce “eleven million loaves of bread a day.” Fisher formed a Committee on War Prohibition and began campaigning for dry laws nationwide. As the pro-prohibition magazine The Independent, noted, “…shall the many have food or the few have drink?” (May 26, 1917) As an economist Fisher was interested in the financial costs of alcohol.

In the 1920s he put specific numbers to the same costs of alcohol he was warning of in 1917… Since scientific research has shown that alcoholic beverages slow down the human machine, and since the human machine is the most important machine in industry, we should expect the use of alcoholic beverages to slow down industry, and we should expect prohibition, if enforced to speed up industry. Experiments show that two or four glasses of beer a day will impair the work done in typesetting by 8 percent, increase the time required for heavy mountain marches 22 per cent, and impair accuracy of shooting under severe Army tests 30 per cent….” Fisher then went on to calculate that “the productivity of labor would be increased from 10 to 20 per cent by effective prohibition.” (Irving Fisher, 1926A, Works, VIII, p. 127) While Fisher’s calculations were made a decade after the war, the argument that alcohol hurt productivity had long been made by dry advocates.

It was countered by labor supporters such as Samuel Gompers, who argued that beer was a working man’s beverage and that banning it would amount to discrimination on the basis of class because the wealthy would still be able to keep their private stocks of hard liquors. Both arguments seemed to resonate with Wilson as he searched for a compromise that might satisfy both sides, stopping the “waste” of grain used in making alcohol, while not penalizing workers by banning their (inexpensive) beverage of choice. In June 1917 the House considered the Lever Food Control Bill, which would allow the government to regulate food production in the US in order to guarantee the most effective use during the war. Drys seized on the opportunity to enact Prohibition as a conversation measure. Congressman Alvin Barkley of Kentucky (later President Harry Truman’s Vice-President) moved to amend the bill so as to forbid the use of foodstuffs in making alcohol. After three attempts his amendment passed. Wets immediately threatened to hold up the bill until the dry measures were stricken from it.

(Peter Odegard, Pressure Politics: the Story of the Anti-Saloon League, 1928, 166-167.) In response Wilson asked the Anti-Saloon League to withdraw the Barkley Amendment at least as it affected the making of light beers and wine. League President James Cannon agreed, providing Wilson wrote a public letter requesting that the League do so. Wilson hesitated, but faced with the defeat of a bill he felt was necessary to the war effort, he agreed. His letter stated, I regard the immediate passage of this bill as of vital consequence to the defense and safety of the nation.

Time is of the essence, and yet it has become evident that heated and protracted debate will delay the passage of the bill indefinitely if the provisions affecting the manufacture of beer and wine are insisted upon.” (PWW 29 June 1917 43:42) Cannon replied “We are aware of the threats [to the Lever Bill] made by the friends of beer and wine in the Senate….We beg to assure you that as patriotic American….we will not for our constituency offer any obstruction to the prompt passage of the food bill.” (PWW 30 June 1917 43:64) Some drys regarded this compromise as a defeat. Senator James Vardaman of Mississippi complained that “the good old ship prohibition…was submarined day before yesterday by the President of the United States. It is now lying on the bottom beneath about forty fathoms of beer and wine.” The wets saw it as a warning that the drys had gained enough legislative power that it took the direct, open intervention of the President to counter their influence.

The Cincinnati Enquirer complained that “…we have the President of the United States under orders to an officious and offensive lobby.” (Odegard 170-171) After the release of Wilson’s letter the food bill passed Congress on August 10. It prohibited the use of foodstuffs (i.e. grain) in distilling, cut back on the amount of grain and coal available to brewers, and allowed Wilson to ban the making of beer and wine in the future if he so desired. He rejected “Food Czar" Herbert Hoover’s suggestion that brewers be limited to using 50% of the grain they had used the year before.

Wilson felt this was far too restriction noting, "I take it for granted that such a reduction would by reducing the supply greatly increase the price of beer and so be very unfair to the classes who are using it, and who can use it with very little detriment when the percentage of alcohol is so small." (PWW 20 November 1917 45:91) Wilson did not ban beer or wine, but restricted the alcohol content of the former to 3% by volume, and limited the alcohol content of beer to 2.75% by weight. Moreover, the amount of foodstuffs used to brew beer was limited to 70% of what had been used the previous year. (For more information on the Food Control Act please see the National Archives site on the Act's History .) The 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act The Anti-Saloon league, through its allies in Congress, introduced the Prohibition Amendment in 1917. It was submitted to the House of Representatives on April 4, 1917.

The Senate received the resolution on July 30, 1917 and passed it August 1 by a vote of 65 to 20. The House got the bill again on December 17 and passed it with several changes. The House version gave Congress and the states the power to enforce the law, it set the date for enacting the law as one year after ratification, and it set a time limit of seven years for the amendment to be passed by the states (the Senate version had said six years). The Senate agreed to the House’s changes and the 18th Amendment was submitted to the states on December 22, 1917. The bill never came before Wilson as the President can neither sign or veto a constitutional amendment. It goes straight from the Congress to the states. The amendment moved quickly through the states. With the ASL and the WCTU pushing state legislatures, the amendment was ratified by the thirty-sixth state on January 16, 1919 making the amendment part of the Constitution. By the end of February 1919, forty five of the forty-eight states had ratified the amendment.

In the end, only Rhode Island and Connecticut never ratified it. Thus the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, the only one to date that restricted a freedom rather than defined or guaranteed one, was to become effective on January 16, 1920. Anti-saloon pamphlet, circa 1918. Went into effect 16 January 1920 The Volstead Act The 18th Amendment, however, did not include enforcement procedures, nor did it define what it meant by “intoxicating liquors.” Brewers and wine producers tried to convince Congress that the alcohol limit should be set high enough to allow light beers and wine while affecting only hard distilled liquors. This would match what the country was used to with the existing wartime restrictions. It also would have matched the US Army’s policies in Europe under General John Pershing’s General Order No. 77. Congress instead passed the far more restrictive Volstead Act, which set the legal alcohol limit to ½ of 1 % alcohol by volume. Named after its sponsor, Andrew Volstead, Republican Representative from Minnesota, the act passed Congress easily.

The House of Representatives passed it on 22 July 1919 by a vote of 287-100. The Senate passed it on 4 September without a roll call. The measure then had to go into conference. The conference bill passed the Senate on 8 October and by the House by a vote of 321-70 on 10 October. President Wilson vetoed the bill on October 27, but it was passed over his veto by the House by a vote of 176-55 on the same day. The Senate overrode the veto the next day, 28 October, by a vote of 65-20. The resulting law not only defined an intoxicating beverage as one containing more than one half of one percent alcohol by volume, it also gave federal agents the power to investigate and prosecute violations of the amendment. Individual states also had the right to enforce the law within their own boundaries. The Volstead Act Prohibition takes effect - Jan 16, 1919 - HISTORY.com Prohibition takes effect Publisher A+E Networks The 18th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, prohibiting the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes,” is ratified on this day in 1919 and becomes the law of the land. The movement for the prohibition of alcohol began in the early 19th century, when Americans concerned about the adverse effects of drinking began forming temperance societies. By the late 19th century, these groups had become a powerful political force, campaigning on the state level and calling for total national abstinence. In December 1917, the 18th Amendment, also known as the Prohibition Amendment, was passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Prohibition took effect in January 1919. Nine months later, Congress passed the Volstead Act, or National Prohibition Act, over President Woodrow Wilson’s veto. The Volstead Act provided for the enforcement of prohibition, including the creation of a special unit of the Treasury Department. Despite a vigorous effort by law-enforcement agencies, the Volstead Act failed to prevent the large-scale distribution of alcoholic beverages, and organized crime flourished in America.

In 1933, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified, repealing prohibition. Related Videos

Question: Which US president vetoed the Volstead Act in 1919?
Answer: Woodrow Wilson